so knowing that we were interested in Jackson, had Quizz AND Snelling plus 4 compensatory late round picks to pick up a developmental player, why did we rush to resign Antoine Smith so fast? For special teams?

I love the addition of Jackson to this offense. Be brings something that Turner couldn't do and that is catching the ball out of the backfield. We may only get 1 or 2 good years out of him but with TG coming back for 1 more go the Falcons I imagine are in a win now mode.

3 yrs. for $12 million and only $4 million guaranteed. I honestly believe that the Falcons are thinking this is a 2 yr contract but if he produces at a high level it wont kill them to let him play out all 3 yrs. I'm smilin like a possum eating briars!!!

I have to say I share Prisco's assessment (linked to below). I like Steven Jackson a lot. Not upset at all that he's on the team. I just feel that the Falcons need to get back to a point where they are a good running team (i.e. Top 15), not settling to be OK, which I think is the case with Jackson, who IMO is probably somewhere between 20th (if you're being generous) and 30th best RB in the league, i.e. a below average starter. I thought Turner was basically that same player in 2011, and look where it led in 2012.

Now I believe Jackson is basically the same caliber of starting RB that Turner was in 2011. Now Turner rushed for 1300 yards, and that masked the "truth" in many eyes that he wasn't a very good player that added marginal value to the team.

Now, Jackson isn't going to make $7 million like Turner did. He's probably only going to count $2 million. And Jackson's value as a leader n the locker room certainly won't be a negative. Besides giving the Falcons another high profile NAME, it barely moves the needle. It adds more to the Media Guide than it probably does on the football field.

Up until Thursday afternoon, I thought the Atlanta Falcons had a terrific free-agency period, re-signing three of their key players.

Then they went and gave running back Steven Jackson a three-year contract.

You just don't pay aging runners in a league where you can find them in the draft. That's my belief.

But I also remember when I ripped the Falcons for signing Michael Turner as a free agent, and that worked out well for a couple of seasons. I had to admit I was wrong. And I told the principles exactly that when it worked out for the team -- including Turner.

This time, it's different. Jackson is older. He'll turn 30 in July, which is ancient for a running back.

Jackson ran for 1,042 yards last season for the Rams, and his per-carry average was 4.1. Not bad, especially behind a line that wasn't very good. He has 2,395 carries on that body, which is a lot.

Here's something else that would concern me: He averaged 4.4 yards per rush on carries 1-10 in a game and 3.7 on carries 11-20. That's telling to me.

I just don't see the explosiveness through the hole from Jackson anymore. He is more of a grinder. Yes, he's better than Turner, who labored to get to the line last season when he averaged 3.6 per rush, but how much better?

Jackson does take care of his body and will be a great teammate. I just think the Falcons are a fast team that plays on a fast track that needs a fast running back. Jackson isn't that. The Falcons might have been better off drafting a young back to step in and play right away. The Redskins showed last year that it can be done, and in a big way, with Alfred Morris.

Falcons general manager Thomas Dimitroff is one of the best in the NFL, a guy whom I respect greatly. And he has proven many of us wrong before. But this is one that I will question until Jackson shows me different.

You can find backs. There's no need to pay guys when they're turning 30. This might turn out to be really a one-year deal and, if so, it might work out. But even so, why not draft a kid and turn him loose?

-- One of the signings I really liked from Thursday was the Saints getting Steelers corner Keenan Lewis. He is a smooth cover player who is coming off his best season. He can play man or zone, and the Saints badly needed an upgrade. His best football is in front of him. In a division with the Falcons, you have to defend the pass.

-- Matt Cassel to the Vikings. Oh, boy. If Christian Ponder doesn't work out, the Vikings are sunk, anyway. Cassel is just backup. That's all he ever should have been. So if the Vikings think he is the answer, they should forget it.

-- The Eagles have totally revamped their secondary. I like the signings of corners Bradley Fletcher and Cary Williams. I also think if Kenny Phillips is healthy, he will help. Patrick Chung, the other safety that they signed, isn't very good. So give the Eagles good grades for three of the signings, but the fourth not so much.

-- Some will say the Colts overpaid for 49ers defensive end Ricky Jean Francois. But he's the type of player whom teams should sign, players who have their best football in front of them. He did a nice job in a reserve role for the 49ers and will be a starter in Indianapolis. The money is high with four years and $22 million, but this is going to be a nice signing in the end.

[quote="Pudge"]I have to say I share Prisco's assessment (linked to below). "But I also remember when I ripped the Falcons for signing Michael Turner as a free agent, and that worked out well for a couple of seasons. I had to admit I was wrong. And I told the principles exactly that when it worked out for the team -- including Turner.

This time, it's different. Jackson is older. He'll turn 30 in July, which is ancient for a running back.

Jackson ran for 1,042 yards last season for the Rams, and his per-carry average was 4.1. Not bad, especially behind a line that wasn't very good. He has 2,395 carries on that body, which is a lot.

Here's something else that would concern me: He averaged 4.4 yards per rush on carries 1-10 in a game and 3.7 on carries 11-20. That's telling to me.

I just don't see the explosiveness through the hole from Jackson anymore. He is more of a grinder. Yes, he's better than Turner, who labored to get to the line last season when he averaged 3.6 per rush, but how much better?" [quote]

Well, give the man props for admitting he was wrong. And, I think he is wrong again on this one.

First, there is a problem with his stats. Here is a guy who was basically the 'offense' of STL. And he plays in the NFC West, which has the most stout defenses: and the Rams played them twice! He had a sh*tty QB, and a OL that is worse then ours. Looking at all that in context, those stats really aren't that bad. Is he Adrian Peterson? No. BUt is he Jason Snelling? Hell no! He is far superior.

(btw look at Snell's tweet: Jason Snelling ‏@JSNELZ44"I Thank God for my father who taught me not to stress over things you cant control." I am curious about him and A Smith. Why did we resign A Smith so fast? Does this mean the end of 'Snailing'? He is signed through '14? http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/atlanta-falc ... -snelling/)

I disagree that SJ has 'lost a step', or isn't 'explosive' or other such nonsense. And Prisco is comparing him to Turner and '3 yards and cloud of dust' grinder-type 3rd down short yardage back, but Turner couldn't catch. The fact that this guy CAN already makes him WAY better then Turner.

Now is it a 'stopgap'? Yes, it is. It's a band-aid. TD and Smitty just want to try one more grab for the brass ring, figure they were 10 yards and a fumbled ball from the Superdome. I give TD credit for this. He got the guy he wanted, for a very,very reasonable contract.

So I suppose we get SJ, we got Quizz, and look for a developmental RB later in the draft.. Doesn't that make the most sense? BUt if we do that, what happens to Snelling/A Smith?

Do we cut Snelling? While it is true, that cutting him results in $716.667 dead money, we still save $491.666 in cap space since keeping him costs us $1,208,333 in cap space. And next year he is due 1.7 mil..While it is not a huge saving and we would have to pay his replacement, the mere fact that we save at least some cap space might result in him being cut and us drafting a RB, who will replace Snelling as the #3 HB. The $491.666 in cap saving is more than enough to pay a rookie RB (round 3-7), so this is quite a reasonable option and year to add youth...My bet is that he will be cut, especially since Jackson offers everything we used to utilize Snelling for. It is even a possibility that Snelling is cut within the next days, to create those extra $491k to help sign a DE/DT free agent. There is just so little risk involved in cutting Snelling and every $$ in cap space is currently worth alot. And (re-)creating cap space for the rookies is something we can do the next 5 weeks after the FA frenzy ended...

I am curious about him and A Smith. Why did we resign A Smith so fast? Does this mean the end of 'Snailing'?)... So I guess we dump Snelling, pick up SJ, and draft another 'developmental' RB later in the draft. Doesn't that make the most sense?

No, it more than likely means that the Falcons don't draft a RB this year. Or if we do, then he competes with Smith for the 4th RB and plays on special teams.

Prisco is right. Jackson has lost a step. He had only 5 runs of 20+ yards in 257 carries. And before you blame the O-line, note that Daryl Richardson had 4 in 98 carries. Jackson is essentially a 3 yards and a cloud of dust runner at this point. Turner had 5 in 222 carries.

When you lower the threshold to 15+ runs, Jackson had 10 for 213 yards. That means on runs that didn't go for 15 yards, he averaged roughly 3.35 yards per carry. The other Rams backs (Richardson & Pead) put up similar numbers over 3 yards per carry. Turner OTOH had a number of 2.72 yards per carry when not getting a 15+ yard gain.

Also Jackson was stuffed far less than Turner was last year. He got tackled behind the line 26 times on 257 carries (10.1%). Turner's number was 31 times on 222 carries (14.0%). Jackson's number represents what was maybe average (or slightly below), while Turner's is near the bottom.

Essentially, Jackson is better at hitting the hole more quickly so he has a lot less 1 and 2 yard runs. Most of his runs are going to go for 3 and 4 yards. That helps the Falcons better stay on schedule on early downs.

In 2010, the Falcons had a run-pass balance of about 55/45 on 1st down, and 44/56 on 2nd down. In 2011, that number dropped to 42/58 on 1st down and 39/61 on 2nd down. In 2012 the numbers shifted further towards passing with 45/55 on 1st down, and 33/67 on 2nd down.

Now comparatively, a team like the Patriots in 2012 had a run/pass balance of 48/52 on 1st down, and 46/54 on 2nd down. That is what we call a truly balanced offense. That's the ultimate goal to eventually be. Because even more so than Tom Brady, Matt Ryan needs an effective running game.

Now, does Jackson help in that regard and the Falcons should see many more advantageous 2nd downs, as Jackson averaged nearly a yard more on 1st & 10 last year than Michael Turner did. So the days of 2nd & 8 are over, now we should see many more 2nd & 6s.

So again, there's no doubt Jackson is an upgrade. There is no doubt the way the offense is today, Jackson will be a far more effective starting running back than Michael Turner. The issue I have is that I don't believe the Falcons should be settling for that. I think the Falcons need to "evolve" the offense more into one that can generate explosive plays on the ground. Because it doesn't look like the Falcons are going to have an OL that is going ot be able to generate consistent push. Purely based on personnel when you don't have a lot of good run blockers starting for you.

IMO, the next evolutionary step for the Falcons offense was to acquire a Ray Rice/Doug Martin type of player that can be both a physical inside runner but also generate those big plays on the ground since that's how the Falcons running game is going to be most effective since with the foreseeable front 5 they have, they're not going to be pile movers.

Now, I belive there were a few backs in this upcoming draft that could have been that player for us. Maybe not in Year 1, but perhaps in Years 2 and 3.

Now Jackson's addition precludes that from happening in 2013. It doesn't preclude that from happening in 2014 and beyond.

It's just not the slam dunk move that it's been billed as. The idea that we're now the "Greatest Show on Turf" is a joke. Marshall Faulk was 26 years old at that point when he was with the Rams, and still in the prime of his career as a 1400-yard running back. Jackson at this point is the 1000-yard runner. Jackson is the same point in his career that Faulk was at in 2003 when the Rams used the #1 pick on Jackson the following year because they knew Faulk was done.

I'm not saying it's a bad move. But I don't think it really makes teh Falcons into a significantly better team, because it won't change how defenses defend us. Jackson isn't going to be rushing for 130 yards because defenses are too busy concentrating on Ryan and The Triplets. That's the difference between him and say a Stevan Ridley.

Great break down, P. I have never been much of a SJ fan. Always seemed like a gentle giant to me but I do think the price is good and the pass catching thing makes him much more two dimensional than MT. How is his pass blocking? MT was always pretty good at that. Has MT gotten a sniff from anyone?

We needed a solid vet RB and to grab a developmental RB in the draft. That's all this really is.

Relying on a 4th round RB/Quizz/Snelling would have been a bad move. I was hoping for a 2m back and looking hard in the draft, but as long as they still draft one, it's a good plan.

The primary thing Jackson brings isn't explosiveness, but formational versatility. With this offense you need backs who can run or catch so your hand isn't tipped. Jackson brings that.

I agree with Pudge that what we really need is a back who crushes teams when they drop their LBs too much into coverage...a guy who makes hay on the 2nd level...and that isn't Jackson. We need our Kendall Hunter (or whoever) for that role. We need the guy who is a matchup nightmare for LBs in the passing game.

The real question comes down to would you rather have taken Reggie Bush and looked for a RB in the draft, or taken Jackson. It's a reasonable debate.

My issue is, we can keep adding weapons (and I want to) but it's not going to mean a whole lot if RG isn't substantially upgraded. We've seen time and again that the way to stop a plethora of weapons is interior pressure (eg Giants/Pats). Let's get a mauling RG so these weapons can thrive.

I definitely would take Jackson over Bush. Bush is essentially 2011 Turner, which is either 2 yards or 20 yards.

The Falcons aren't going to draft a developmental back. If they do, it'll be at the end of the draft and that player will be expected to play special teams or they'll be inactive every week. Which really doesn't bring much more value than a good undrafted free agent (think Bobby Rainey).

After listening to the press conference of Jackson, I'm softening on my negativity on this signing. Jackson is too likeable, I really forgot how much I liked him because I got too enamored with the idea of Giovanni Bernard.

I won't be caught twice being wrong about Falcon free agent running back signings.

I definitely would take Jackson over Bush. Bush is essentially 2011 Turner, which is either 2 yards or 20 yards.

The Falcons aren't going to draft a developmental back. If they do, it'll be at the end of the draft and that player will be expected to play special teams or they'll be inactive every week. Which really doesn't bring much more value than a good undrafted free agent (think Bobby Rainey).

After listening to the press conference of Jackson, I'm softening on my negativity on this signing. Jackson is too likeable, I really forgot how much I liked him because I got too enamored with the idea of Giovanni Bernard.

I won't be caught twice being wrong about Falcon free agent running back signings.

I agree with the Jackson over Bush thing. I may even agree with the RB in the draft, but I hope you/we're wrong. There's no good reason not to take a WR/RB/TE combo in the 4th and 5th. If we don't get some young talent (and guys who can take advantage of the coverages) we'll have problems. They've done the hard part and gotten the elite top guys...now just get the guys who abuse LBs in coverage...that's the bar here.

We don't need 1st and 2nds, just midround talent. We need it at 2TE, 3WR and speed RB. Keep developing talent there. It's why I'd like a little more FA activity (2 cheap DL) on D...so we can get some of those guys in the draft. Don't like being completely honed in on one side of the ball.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum